The European Union

[MrMetro]

Although I criticised the EU in the Liberal Democrat thread, I have since read more about the EU.

Although it has its negatives, it also has positives. My stance on the EU is I have no strong opinion for or against it.

I was wondering what others think of the EU. Please, no personal attacks like in the Lib Dem thread, lets have a mature discussion.

[Roamy]

I am against it. I liked Europe the way it was. All the countries with their own identity. It was fun screwing around with currency and going to countries offering the best value. Although it was still somewhat controlled. I am also beginning to change my opinion about the so called global economy. I need to study a bit more on that. In addition I am afraid that the EU will and has led to free for all immigration which in the long run will change Europe as we have known it. These are all personal thoughts and I suspect the Euros will be on here with the factual information that we an debate.

[Hondo]

I think the EU is well on it's way to becoming an irrelevant facade organization, similar to the UN. I have long held the belief that things like financial recessions are not "cured" by government or established business. They are not cured at all. Instead, common folks like us make adjustments to our life styles that soon become habit and we learn to operate under the new conditions, including new ways to make money. As we get better at it, talk of recession fizzles away and whichever political party happens to be in the majority at the time takes credit for "ending the recession". In dealing with recession, most become nationalistic and will look to cure themselves first. Countries that have tried to be more financially responsible are going to be loath to bail out countries that have run wild with their social spending. In addition, immigration becomes a sore point as guest workers take jobs from citizens, forgetting of course, if citizens were willing to do the jobs, the guest workers wouldn't be there to start with. I think there are way too many cultural, ethnic, tribal, and racial differences mixed with a constantly changing leadership for the EU to ever be anything other than it's own self-creating industry.

[F1boat]

Strongly for it. First of all, it has helped a lot to my country. The politicians in Bulgaria are notoriously corrupt and most, if not all, come from the old Communist party and can not be trusted to be faithful to democracy. The EU has helped a lot, not as much as I hoped, but a lot.

[Roamy]

Hondo :up: :up: :up:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The EU does a great job at closing the inequality differences in Europe. Rundown parts of north England would have not seen any investment at all if it wasn't for the EU development fund.

It also helps European nations hold some power on world affairs, since our economies have been overtaken by the US, China and Japan.

The idea that the EU has harmed the identity and individuality of soveriegn European nations is nonsense.

And the big plus point for the EU - since the foundation of the European Economic Community in the 1950's Europe has never been as peaceful.

[Hondo]

Whether the rundown parts of north England, Latvia, or Chicago receive new business investment is as much up to what kind of business friendly climate the locality and host nation are willing to provide for it, protectionism aside. If you adopt a "if you want to sell it here then you must make some here" attitude, then being a member of a cartel or union can be beneficial sometimes. Nothing works forever though. Your peaceful times were more the product of a common fear of the Soviets and the creation of NATO than anything the EEC had it's hands in. World War I was basically started by a couple of piss ant nationalities kicking dirt at each other which got out of hand and then the grand alliances kicked in, creating a huge mess. World War II has it's roots in the heavy handed terms of the WW I armistice.

As far as "inequality differences" goes, I doubt the English, French, or Germans view Estonia, Latvia, and Slovakia as their equals. When you get a whole bunch of cultures and ethnic groups all wanting to be their own country, you get a bunch of small, unequal countries. If they couldn't get along as one larger country, what makes you think getting along as part of a union is going to be easier? They may think they're getting a more equal slice of the pie but those slices will get smaller and smaller as the larger, more productive countries get tired of having to share so much of what they earned.

[Rollo]

And the big plus point for the EU - since the foundation of the European Economic Community in the 1950's Europe has never been as peaceful.

I think that this is the main point :up:

The six years prior to 1945 and the events of 26 years previous, saw some of the bloodiest conflict that the continent had ever seen. With the new threat of nuclear weapons, is it little wonder that the various nations wanted to try to put an end to any future conflicts?
The European Coal and Steel Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and maybe the EEC itself, I think were the first attempts at diffusing nationalism within Europe by symbolically trading the resources required to make weaponry.


I think the EU is well on it's way to becoming an irrelevant facade organization, similar to the UN.

What do you mean "on it's way" to becoming an irrelevant facade organization? Wasn't it always a farce, for the reasons which you have stated?


I think there are way too many cultural, ethnic, tribal, and racial differences mixed with a constantly changing leadership for the EU to ever be anything other than it's own self-creating industry.

Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
- Sir Humphrey Appleby

[AndySpeed]

It's done a lot for European Water Policy - before the 2000 WFD the legislation was very piecemeal and did not tackle the issue effectively - now it is heading in the right direction.

There are many other areas where EU policy has helped and overall I'm in favour of the EU.

[Malbec]

In addition I am afraid that the EU will and has led to free for all immigration which in the long run will change Europe as we have known it. These are all personal thoughts and I suspect the Euros will be on here with the factual information that we an debate.

You mean immigration within Europe I take it? That was a very deliberate move on the part of the EU.

The fact is that the EU sees the US and China as strong competitors. Both economies have their productivity boosted by migration. In America's case it imports both talent and cheap labour from outside (legally or illegally), in China's case the migration is internal from the poor interior to the developed coast.

For individual European countries this kind of migration simply isn't possible. Most European countries have fairly 'flat' economies where wealth is pretty evenly distributed so internal migration doesn't really work. By opening up migration within the EU though, any economic hotspot within Europe quickly attracts workers from other parts giving it access to cheaper labour and also redistribution of wealth within Europe to let poorer areas grow. Mass migration of Poles to the UK is a great example, they've contributed a lot to the economy particularly in construction and agriculture and they've sent a lot of money home to boost Poland's economic growth. Now the difference between the Polish and British economies isn't as large so migration has started to flow the other way, Poles are going home.

Of course it hasn't been sold this way to the electorate but that is the underlying philosophy behind free internal migration in the EU.

[BDunnell]

You mean immigration within Europe I take it? That was a very deliberate move on the part of the EU.

The fact is that the EU sees the US and China as strong competitors. Both economies have their productivity boosted by migration. In America's case it imports both talent and cheap labour from outside (legally or illegally), in China's case the migration is internal from the poor interior to the developed coast.

For individual European countries this kind of migration simply isn't possible. Most European countries have fairly 'flat' economies where wealth is pretty evenly distributed so internal migration doesn't really work. By opening up migration within the EU though, any economic hotspot within Europe quickly attracts workers from other parts giving it access to cheaper labour and also redistribution of wealth within Europe to let poorer areas grow. Mass migration of Poles to the UK is a great example, they've contributed a lot to the economy particularly in construction and agriculture and they've sent a lot of money home to boost Poland's economic growth. Now the difference between the Polish and British economies isn't as large so migration has started to flow the other way, Poles are going home.

Of course it hasn't been sold this way to the electorate but that is the underlying philosophy behind free internal migration in the EU.

Indeed. On that basis, any supporter of the free market ought to be supportive. Unfortunately, many people of that persuasion seem to have an unduly restricted view of what the free market actually entails, owing to their own political prejudices.

[Drew]

The EU does a great job at closing the inequality differences in Europe. Rundown parts of north England would have not seen any investment at all if it wasn't for the EU development fund.


Seriously?! It seems like the north gets a disproportionate amount of government spending at times! How often does Manchester get regenerated? :p :

But keeping on topic. I'm in favour of the EU on the whole. I don't particularly agree with the amount of power the EU has. But the positives outweigh the negatives. Europe has to stick together to be able to compete against the USA, China and other countries.

[fandango]

I think the existence of the EU makes a repeat of WWI or WWII in Europe (bit of a contradiction in terms there, I know) a lot less likely, and that's a good thing.

[Mark]

I think the existence of the EU makes a repeat of WWI or WWII in Europe (bit of a contradiction in terms there, I know) a lot less likely, and that's a good thing.

That is true, but I think we would have gone in that direction anyway. Industrialised countries have finally realised that there is more to be gained from democracy and making money than trying to invade your neighbours.

I would wager that it's the complete devastation of the Second World War that shook us into that belief, and not the European Union.

However in general I'm in favour of a strong EU.

[Cooper_S]

The EU is not perfect... but does good works a lot unnoticed.

Maybe it expanded too quickly but with the break up of the Soviet Union many of those newly emancipated nations would have faced dire futures without the EU, maybe without the EEC/EC/EU the end of the Soviet Union would have taken far longer if it would have happened at all.

I still see myself as pro EU despite it's short comings

[ioan]

I am all for the EU, it sure has a few shortcomings, but nothing is perfect and in this case the positives hugely outweigh the negatives.

Funny how our US posters who know bugger all about what the EU does for the Europeans are against it and want to see it crumble, are they afraid that they will lose their 'supremacy'?!

[donKey jote]

methinks they're only "jealous" :dozey: :laugh: :bandit:

[race aficionado]

methinks they're only "jealous" :dozey: :laugh: :bandit:

I'm one of them ignorants.

I can only refer to my personal experience when I first went to Europe with my back pack, my Eurail train pass and my reference book called "Europe at $10 dollars a Day" . . . . yes, it's dated. . . . 1974!

Any way . . . I quickly learned that the affordable havens were Spain and Italy and I was looking forward to return someday to enjoy the bargains and now with the EU and the dollar gone bonkers, prices leveled and even got a bit over priced.

I know, I may be showing my age and out of touchness with good ol' Europe.

So enlighten me please.

:s mokin:

[ioan]

methinks they're only "jealous" :dozey: :laugh: :bandit:

I guess you are right donks! :D

[Hondo]

I am all for the EU, it sure has a few shortcomings, but nothing is perfect and in this case the positives hugely outweigh the negatives.

Funny how our US posters who know bugger all about what the EU does for the Europeans are against it and want to see it crumble, are they afraid that they will lose their 'supremacy'?!

I'm not against the EU, could care less really. But the question was asked and my answer, like most of my answers, was based upon the historical steadfastness of human nature. Now that everybody and their brother has their own country in Europe the question is how many of these countries can completely support themselves? Few, if any at all. In addition, as populations grow, they become less able to sustain themselves in a limited geographical area. You can't put 10 liters of product in a 5 liter bag. Your options are to strictly control population growth or become stagnant and sink into starvation and poverty or go to war to gain more territory or form an alliance to make nice-nice with everybody else. Even within an alliance, everyone will not be equal and those with the most to lose will be willing to risk the least, especially on those they view as acting irresponsibly in their domestic policies. It will not be possible to evenly spread trade agreements over the entire union and ultimately the consumer will select the lower cost product, if available, whether it is manufactured within the union or outside the union. If it came down to a hardcore trade protectionism issue, I don't know if the EU could hold out on it's own. Russia still lives and could become a threat the EU cannot counter anytime it wishes. All it has to do is close a few pipelines and Europe freezes in the dark.

The biggest strike against the EU is it's attempt to make that lofty, Utopian concept of multiculturalism work. It makes for an intriguing philosophy, but doesn't work in real world application. Multiculturalism has been the downfall of all the great empires, including the British Empire. That multiculturalism doesn't work is why you now have so many independent countries in Europe again and why Russia broke up after the Soviet Union folded the tent. Each member of the EU would have to be 100% equal of every other member and in reality, that isn't going to happen. It is doing some good now by helping to keep heads above water until something better comes along but at some point as members are able to stand by themselves, it will become a money pit of which will have the more successful members question their funding.

[Daniel]

I am against it. I liked Europe the way it was. All the countries with their own identity. It was fun screwing around with currency and going to countries offering the best value. Although it was still somewhat controlled. I am also beginning to change my opinion about the so called global economy. I need to study a bit more on that. In addition I am afraid that the EU will and has led to free for all immigration which in the long run will change Europe as we have known it. These are all personal thoughts and I suspect the Euros will be on here with the factual information that we an debate.

I don't really get what you're saying. I've travelled a little through Europe (Switzerland, UK, Poland, Germany, Italy, France and Finland) and each country still has its identity and Neither Poland nor Switzerland is no more distinct than Germany or Italy for having its own currency.

That said I never travelled around Europe when the Euro wasn't around so I can't comment on what it was like before.

[Drew]

Funny how our US posters who know bugger all about what the EU does for the Europeans are against it and want to see it crumble, are they afraid that they will lose their 'supremacy'?!

China will "take care" of that quite easily.

[Rollo]

In addition I am afraid that the EU will and has led to free for all immigration which in the long run will change Europe as we have known it.

Prior to World War I, passports weren't generally required at all to travel around Europe; people moved about if they felt like. Heck, the United States itself had waves of immigration pass through Ellis Island.
Are you worried that Europe will change back to something which it was?

[Garry Walker]

I think the existence of the EU makes a repeat of WWI or WWII in Europe (bit of a contradiction in terms there, I know) a lot less likely, and that's a good thing.

EU does nothing against that, the existence of Nuclear Weapons and development of the world has taken care of that. EU is irrelevant in that regard. Besides that, domination over other countries these days is achieved using different methods than just invading your neighbour.

I am generaly against EU, too much bureaucracy, but it has some good points to it. But as it is lead at the moment, I am against it.